On 19 May 2011 23:01, Michael Hope <michael.h...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: >> Well, so bottom line of this, as far as I see it, is: Gerrit is de facto >> tool for Android, and for Linaro Android we'd like to be sure that it >> supports more flexible/advanced approach than which is seen typically >> in Android shops. It's also nice idea to select single official >> Linaro git review tool. But I agree that Gerrit doesn't immediately fit >> with canonical kernel workflow, while its choice is almost fixed for >> Android by upstream usage. > > Note that QEMU also uses GIT but has a different workflow that > probably doesn't fit Gerrit.
Yep. QEMU review is straightforward on-mailing-list stuff. What QEMU could use is better patch tracking (patchwork has several fatal flaws for our purposes, unfortunately), but there doesn't really seem to be any demand for a better review tool. > I've yet to find two projects that have the same workflow. Agreed -- "do what upstream does" is much more important than trying to do the same thing across all of Linaro IMHO. -- PMM _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
